Is there any History that is absent biased, and thus inaccuracies? Moreover, are we losing History by abandoning Literature to Mythology?
My BS in in Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, wherein History was paired with Government, and rather than investigating sources for accuracy or searching to discover actual truth, it was much more about memorizing dates and stories.
My MA thesis was based on my re-discovery that Amerindians both owned land and had subdivided the entire North American continent before Columbus ever got off the boat. I was told that Jefferson’s Rectangle Survey System was not an acceptable topic.
Undeterred I continued my research, looking into French and Spanish incursions into the Western Territories for evidence of this land division when I ran across this- Tolkien's Hidden Truth - Imgur
It is a quote from Coronado about seeing great signal fires atop mountains…
When I read it, I envision “the beacons of Gondor are lit!”
*That’s a discussion for another time…
But, here and now, isn’t History really Literature, or shouldn’t it at least be treated as such?
History started out as a subset of Literature. Then it became a science. We do our level best to be unbiased and accurate, analyse our sources critically (both as text/image and as a historical object in and of itself) and so on. There’s a method to a historian’s madness.
Which is not to say it has wholly left its roots behind - many historians write damn well, which is pleasant when they cover horribly dry material.
You seem to be generalizing off of a terrible experience. Memorizing dates and stories? That’s what turns people off in high school, and has no place in a college curriculum.
Even 50 years ago, when I minored in history, we had revisionist historians who were taking apart the older stories and trying to investigate and discover deeper and more accurate versions of what took place. There were also professors in the department who were pioneering new techniques to broaden history from just historic documents and diaries.
Good history is exactly research, placed into the context of its times, and then examined and re-examined through the various lenses of hindsight. It certainly is much more than mere government; history is everything that ever happened in society. That’s the way it’s studied and taught today. Yet history is not literature either. It shines as a thing on its own that can be paired with all other disciplines, since every one of them has a past to illuminate.
We should not treat history as a form of fiction. There are people who really lived and events that really occurred; they are the proper foundation for history.
Imagine a graduate course wherein your only assignment is to review house inventories from the 1700’s (taken of a person’s belongings after they died, often done by neighbors). There are hundreds of such inventories, we were to choose 20 of a like and kind, and then recreate the documents to group items together in rooms.
After relisting scores of items we were to write a paper as to how “gentile” the owners of these items were. No research, no new information found, or old data confirmed. Just speculation, based on incomplete information. (*One guy just 4 casks of wine, and a dozen goblets…that’s it no clothes, furniture, or stuff to eat with.)
It wasn’t just this course, but how it was combined with Government, and how everything was set in stone, unquestionable.
nod those are the traditional big 4s (sometimes paired with music as well). My own university (cough the Sorbonne cough *) gives History majors a choice between philosophy, sociology & anthropology, art history, geography and law as the “Other Big Topic” to study alongside the 4 History courses ; plus a smattering of electives. None of which include literature.
That being said, back when I was studying English we also had a bunch of US & UK history courses alongside phonology, translation, literature, linguistics etc…, since it’s important context for the literature.
Heh. Brother, you ever find *complete *historical information, do let us know. We’ve been working with lists, inventories, parish records and so on all along, man. Because in most places, that’s all there is. And of course it’s worse and worse the further up in time you’re looking.
it’s really much less prestigious than its reputation/name-recognition. Any asshole can get in, honestly :). Nice digs though.
What on earth are they teaching in schools in Texas these days? Or was it just yours?
My elementary and high school education back in the 1950’s and 60’s left out a whole lot of stuff, including nearly everything unpleasant about Columbus’ behavior. But I certainly learned that specific tribes owned land in specific areas before Columbus got here. You got clear to your MA thesis not knowing that?
It proves that Amerindians both owned land and subsidized the continent.
My thesis advisor tossed it back, told me it was unacceptable. I applied to Tulsa University, which has an Amerindian Program. They told me not just “No, but don’t bother re-applying.”
If you can find me a history program willing to call Thomas Jefferson a liar and a thief, point me to it.
Re-creating lists isn’t history… Why not task us with researching the individuals, their families, look into MORE than inventories…locate the house, look for the context to tell us more than speculation.
I spent over 40 hours just re-typing this stuff to add a column for the room.
It wasn’t investigative enough for me… Again, I come for Criminal Justice & Legal Studies.
History should be a search for what’s missing, not acceptance of a Government issued History book.
